Pollster.com

Palin's fav/unfav is 36/50 yet she gets 41 against BamBam.

Interesting..

Only 2 up on Huckabee and tied with Romney....and htis is for registered voters? Romney would probably be leading in a likely voter poll right now....not a good sign this early into O's term.

@StatyPolly

So since he is black you call him BamBam? That is soooo racist. People like you prove over and over again that the conservative movement is full of bigots like you.

@Stillow

Yes it is not a good sign as long as unemployment remains 9.7% two and a half years from now and there is no healthcare bill. Besides that, yeah these numbers are real significant. [/sarcasm]

I really hope that as more people hear of Mitch Daniels his ratings go up. I definitely like him best of the candidates that are thrown around now. And, we've still got 2 years before another election, so much can change. I must say though, I really hope the GOP isn't stupid enough to nominate Sarah Palin. I like her stances just fine, but as a president... no. Just no.

And for goodness sake, stop playing the race card. Yep, he's black. Cool. I could care less. However, I disagree with basically every major decision he has made in office. That, I do care about.

BamBam is racist? LOL. Is Dubya racist too? How about Slick Willie? Its clear the left has lost it. You can always tell when they are losing or they are really nervous when they start using the racist stuff.

The only bambam I know of is Barney and Betty Rubble's son from the Flinstone's.....and I beleive he was white.

Not a good sign for all the people that critique internet polls and then use them for their own commentary advantage.

@Stilow

Are you ignorant and completely unaware of the racist depictions of people of African origins? Or maybe you are just really really deluded. I'm guessing it is a little of both.

X - Your comment made no sense. This poll is not internet, its automated phone polling. What are you talking about?

OL - I gotta here this one, so explain how bam bam is racist........

What about tricky Dick? Is that racist too?

Can someone please let the left in on a little secret, O is just as much white as he is black.

But I am on edge for this one OL, tell us all how bam bam is racist!

BamBamLover, Stillow,

I just googled it, and it says BamBam refers to someone who is half white, half black, born in Kenya and is full of crap.

Sorry BBLover, I had no idea. An honest mistake.

@Stillow

bambam wears a certain garb and carries a club, a depiction that some racist people in the South have of black people in Africa. Geez do I have to spell it out for you? But I'm sure you are playing dumb. I don't think you are that stupid. Bam Bam is a common racist term for black people for some time. But your willingness to defend racists is quite disturbing...

The US is such a stupid country. I have often thought of moving, but that would be to give in. We live in a country where public opinion can be bought and now with the highly partisan Supreme court decision, it is so easy for corporations to go out of their way all over the country to spend money to trash Obama and all his policies. I am simply disgusted with the way people think. This poll is ridiculous when it comes to Huckabee trailing by 2 and Obama by 8. I believe the Mitt Romney part of it, but than again if the GOP gains a lot of seats and America sees that they want to send bills to the President that are similar to the ideas that Gingrich's "contract on America" and the Bush polices had, they will regret voting for the idiots and Obama will win easily in 2012 just like Clinton did in 1996. When you have something clear to campaign against it is a lot easier to get elected. To the average American idiot voter, "the grass is always greener". They really don't care about the issues as much as the fact that with many Americans they are never satisfied with whoever is in power.

I hope Huckabee does get the nomination over Romney because he has said a lot more contreversial things on the record. He even made a threat on Obama's life at a NRA meeting, right after Obama became president.

To all you progressives out there, get out, get busy and don't be afraid to speak out about what you believe. Use facts to discredit myths. Health care has confused many Americans and that is because it has bored many.

I bet if they had a poll back in 1982 when Reagan had a 40 percent approval, Ted Kennedy may have polled 8 points above Reagan. Polls are misleading; in fact I remember when Weselley Clark first entered the Democratic primary in 2003, one poll had him leading Bush. Clark lasted about 3 months before dropping out, so you can't go by that.

Just to make myself clear, it was a speech Huckabee made at a NRA convention and he was trying to crack a joke and said "if there are gun shots around Obama should keep his distance". He didn't say that word for word, but the implication was rather creepy

StatyPolly

That was the funniest thing I have read in months! Thanks...maybe that will help me get over this damn cold!

OL - Shhhh, bambam was "white".

What about when they used to call Bush Bushwacker......is that racist too?

farleft - wow, your a liberal who thinks america sucks and is stupid....geee, thats original. Bash America every day all day, but oh yea, but your a patriot who loves your country....................

You libs are on fire today!

I agree about Daniels. He has a 70% approval here in Indiana. He turned a budget deficit into a surplus in his first term and kept Indiana from being one of only a few states to stay in the black in this recession.

Oops - I'm sorry, ObamaLover. I said black when talking about the budget. That probably offends you.

People still don't get it yet. The presidency means almost nothing any more. Congress runs this country. It doesn't matter who is elected president in 2012, it matters who controls the house, the senate, the state houses, and the governorships. 2012 could have the republicans winning a majority of all of those. There is only so much you can do by presidential decree.

Well to be honest, I do get a bit angry on a bad day. Just to clarify what I said, I think there are a lot of Americans who get misinformation from their friends, church, fox news, family, local newspapers and most of all, corporate money that is going to be spent and has been spent to attack health care and wall street greed. In my views they present misinformation when I can go to Fact check. com and find that they are not being truthful. I think out of what I mentioned, Fox news has minimal impact compared to the others.

I still have faith America can be a better country, but we have a long long way to go. I think too many Americans are gullible and believe myths. Now even our textbooks coming from Texas have picked and chosen which American leaders should be emphasized more than others. I got a lot of misinformation when I was in school, and probably the textbooks I had were from Texas.

Glad I could help, Stillow!

It's been in the 80's here in SoCal the past few days. Spring is coming to your neck of the woods soooon. Should help with the cold.

P.S. I hope "neck of the woods" is not a racist term. You know, as in Tiger Woods. Maybe Sexist?

P.P.S. It's been a while since I've watched Flinstones, but it appears BamBam was an albino. Not that there aren't African-American albinos. Or just African. Or Asian. South American? Australian Aborigines?

http://jacorre.com/design/images/bambam-pebbles.jpg

http://images.buycostumes.com/mgen/merchandiser/31384.jpg

I'm a democrats, but I hate Democrats who pretend to see racism in everything. One commenter accused another of racism for calling Obama "BamBam." So what?
The Daily News of New York calls him "Bam" regularly.

Stillow/Statypolly,

I think this link is 100% OL.

http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu231/firewaller/shout_racist.jpg

I agree with Mitch Daniels. I went to the PPP website when they were asking whom else to add in this presidential poll. I wrote in Mitch Daniels are few dozen times. Looks like it helped!

Be careful with factcheck.org. It is run by The ANNENBERG Public Policy Center - a left leaning advocacy group. You can't use any one source for factual information - there is bias in everything everywhere.

They would say that the current bill will reduce the deficit by $130 billion to be a truthful fact. It is, sort of, if you ignore the $375 billion of deficits required to pay for the portion of medicare spending that was taken out of this bill and put somewhere else. This bill reduces deficits $130 billion - for the healthcare budget. This bill also increases deficits $375 billion - for the general budget. They are both true. So when you are dealing with a deceitful congress - truth is relative.

and you guys are soooooo perplexed as to why blacks vote in droves for Democrats. Too funny.

Correct Gary. It also assumes that doctors will be paid 20% less than what they are being paid now and that the level of pay will never increase. In addition, it starts collecting "revenues" now but doesn't start paying out benefits for 4 years.

@Stillow

"What about when they used to call Bush Bushwacker"

Ha! I didn't realize Bush was black. LOL! you are hopelessly deluded.

@FM

actually the second decade projections are 10 times better: 1.2 trillion reduction in the deficit, and that is the CBO's estimate, which normally gives a conservative estimate. Also, they are paying out benefits at full steam then. Sorry to burst your bubble.

OL,

Yup, and sorry to burst your bubble but there is a reason for that. Its because the projections take into account the doc fix which will never occur (and reduce the deficit more as time passes) and the medicare gutting. In addition, the second decade is only that good because of tax increases. If you look at the CBO score, there is zero cost savings due to anything other than cuts that will not happen and tax increases.

Only a liberal actually thinks you can increase service to 30 million people and decrease the cost....without severe rationing. That's like having 5 more kids and claiming your cost swill go down. Its a gimmick, they use 10 years of taxes to pay for 6 years of service....then the ponzi scheme really starts!

If passed and somehow surivives the courts, it will jus tbe another unfunded entitlement we don't have any money for....just add it to the list with the other entitlements.

Oh ya and the obvous, no g'ment entitlement has ever not exceeded its cost projections.

FM - Great link. That pretty much sums up a liberal...just shout racism when your losing the debate.

@Stillow

What you don't understand is that that 30 million is already covered now. Except they are covered with Emergency Room care, which is far more costly. Just go down to any urban hospital, and look at the long lines of indigent patients they treat in their ER. Plus there is entitlement reform in the bill, which also brings down the deficit.

But go on sticking your head in the sand and pretend we don't have a problem.

OL,

That is a myth.

From Realclearpolitics:

A study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that the insured accounted for 83 percent of emergency room visits, reflecting their share of the population. After Massachusetts adopted universal insurance, emergency room use remained higher than the national average, reports an Urban Institute study. More than two-fifths of visits represented non-emergencies. Adult respondents to a survey said it was "more convenient" to go to the emergency room or they couldn't "get (a doctor's) appointment as soon as needed." If universal coverage makes appointments harder to get, emergency room use may increa

OL,

That is a myth.

From Realclearpolitics:

A study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that the insured accounted for 83 percent of emergency room visits, reflecting their share of the population. After Massachusetts adopted universal insurance, emergency room use remained higher than the national average, reports an Urban Institute study. More than two-fifths of visits represented non-emergencies. Adult respondents to a survey said it was "more convenient" to go to the emergency room or they couldn't "get (a doctor's) appointment as soon as needed." If universal coverage makes appointments harder to get, emergency room use may increase.

@FM

You are contradicting yourself. First you say government run healthcare is bad, but when democrats engage in entitlement reform of Medicare you cry. Then you go on to say there are no cost savings... huh? Hypocrite much? LOL.

Fact of the matter the tax increases and entitlement reforms do reduce the deficit, neither one is politically popular, but if you are serious about reducing the deficit that is what you have to do. You can't click your heels together and expect to reduce the deficit over a trillion dollars like this bill does.

And that is the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats come up with serious and realistic solutions for our nation's problems and then you have people like Reagan and Bush 43 who promise you can have whatever you want and slash taxes, which ultimately leads to huge long term deficits.

"You are contradicting yourself. First you say government run healthcare is bad, but when democrats engage in entitlement reform of Medicare you cry. Then you go on to say there are no cost savings... huh? Hypocrite much? LOL. "

OL, i think you don't know what you're talking about. Government run health care is bad. I'm not crying that Medicare is being gutted. I'm just saying its all smoke and mirrors and it seems the gullible Obamabots fell for it. Typical. The cost savings are fake. There is no medicare reform. They are simply saying they will pay out $500 billion less in medicare reimbursements over the next 10 years. A) That's not going to happen and B) that is not reform.

You cannot cut Medicare and claim deficit reduction and then also claim those funds for health care reform. Simple as that. I'm all for Medicare reform- we should just raise the age to 80 and that would be that.

But the Dems are simply using tricks to make it look better than it really is. The doc fix alone is $1 trillion over the next decade and a half. Not to mention the imaginary cost savings from medicare efficiencies (hey, i thought it was already more efficient than private insurance? LOL!).

Second, the only way it reduces the deficit is through tax increases which will ultimately reduce future economic growth.

I fully expect a charge of racism in the next post since i have him in a corner.

@FM

1.) They are not fooling "Obamabots". This is the Congressional Budget Office's numbers. You can believe whatever you like, but don't misrepresent where these numbers are coming from just to suit your argument. You are entitled to your own opinion about this bill but you are not entitled to your own facts.

2. A lot of the savings from Medicare are reductions in subsidies for insurance companies on Medicare part D; the real unfunded liability that the conservatives stuck us with after Republicans let PAYGO expire so they wouldn't have to pay for Medicare part D.

3. The average life expectancy in America is well below 80. Surely, your joking?

4. There are costs and savings in this bill. the 500 billion is part of the savings, and the subsidies are part of the costs. But the savings outweigh the costs. That is why this bill is a net decrease in the deficit.

5. Like I said before no one is tricking anyone, these are CBO numbers. Unless you are suggesting the CBO is lying to Congress, in which case you are suggesting there is corruption in the Congressional Budget Office. Where is your evidence of this?

6. Did Bush Senior and Clinton's tax increase reduce economic growth in the '90s.

Here is a nice chart for you:
http://lanekenworthy.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/presidentsandincomeinequality-figure1-version1.png

OL,

1) The CBO is scoring what they are told to score based on the parameters given to them. For instance, they could be given parameters that the bill will assume the price of emergency room care will decline 50% per year. It doesn't have to jive with reality, hence the reason the Dems gave them these parameters. They made it so it would score under $1 trillion and reduce the deficit. However, if you believe that doctors will accept 20% less in medicare and medicaid payments for eternity, i have some Enron stock i'd like to sell you. The assumptions are fact. You choosing to ignore them says a lot about you.

2) Actually very little savings from medicare come from the reduction in that subsidy. Most come from the highly popular medicare advantage plans being eliminated and reduced reimbursement rates to doctors which will never happen.

3) Life expectancy is 78. But life expectancy at 65 is now 84. That's nearly 20 years of benefits. When Medicare was enacted, life expectancy was 66. So the average person received it for one year.

4) The savings are an illusion. This is what i'm telling you. The only thing that will truly reduce the costs are the tax increases in the bill. But those tax increases are not enough to offset the costs when you back out the savings that will never occur.

5)Again, the dems are using tricks when they tell the CBO to score the bill using those assumptions. The CBO is required to do that. This is not difficult.

6) Impossible to know. At the time, the proportion of people paying the top rate was small, less than 0.7%. During Bush, the number was over 1.2%. However, Clinton's tax cut on capital gains was much more effective and was responsible for considerable economic growth as per Christina Romer, Obama's economic adviser.

Meanwhile, with about a 40% SUPERMAJORITY in BOTH CHAMBERS, and a smooth talking con artist in the WH, the Dems still can't pass this amazingly orgasmic HC bill.

Reason? Obvious - GOP are selfish bastards.

@StatyPolly

Why did it take so long to pass a Civil Rights Act if it was such a good bill? Your argument is just silly.

I don't understand why you guys are getting all worked up over an election that is over two years away. Are conservatives really that depressed and desperate that they need to grasp at any fig leaf, no matter how tenuous and unreliable it is?

Calm down! 2012 will come around soon enough. Just make sure that come election time you have a hotline to shrink. I fear the mass hysteria and psychotic depression that would hit the conservative ranks after another Obama victory.

Obama is the worst thing to hit the conservative movement since Lincoln and his abolitionist radicals. He is a black progressive with an Ivy league background and seemingly impeccable family values. He is also charismatic, congenial and conciliatory. Worst of all, he is too inexperienced and naive to fear a populist conservative backlash so he has no qualms about pushing a progressive agenda.

Contrary to their facade of confidence about the 2012 elections, there are many conservatives who have nightmares regularly about the likelihood of an Obama victory.

Statypolly is a birther. That explains it all.

OL,

It took awhile to hammer out a bi-partisan agreement. Good bills take time. Obama wants to ram this one down our throats because we need to act NOW. Of course the bill doesn't kick in for four year which shows what a liar the man is.

Its like the financial reform bill. Dodd and Corker were working well on a bi-partisan bill and then Dodd abruptly says he will go it alone and throw Corker to the curb. Dodd and you Obamabots will then cry and whine that the Reps will vote no on it. Gee... i wonder why...

And Besides, how many non-whites do we see at Tea party and anti-health care rallies. Maybe we'll see Clarence Thomas, at his Wife's Freedom works type Group. I dare him to show up.

"And Besides, how many non-whites do we see at Tea party and anti-health care rallies. Maybe we'll see Clarence Thomas, at his Wife's Freedom works type Group. I dare him to show up."

Who cares?

@FM

1. Your first point about acting "NOW" and "Ramming" and "not taking time" would be a good point, except it is devoid of any historical perspective and just basic facts whatsoever. Healthcare has been being debated since FDR. An the legislation in its current form as been been debated for almost a year. So this idea they are ramming it through is patently absurd.

2. It's funny you should call Obama a liar about something that you yourself are lying about. Parts of the bill will kick in immediately. And when has Obama said that all parts of the bill will be effective immediately? He has never said that. It is easy to tell that you conservatives don't have a leg to stand on because you guys constantly lie.

3. Well Corker doesn't want to impose any significant amount of regulations on the banks. The Republicans want to let things go on like they were before the financial crisis. Dodd didn't really have a choice if he wanted to pass a bill with some teeth.

@ObamaLover

Excellent post!

I find it funny how some people on here criticize this poll when it shows a wide margin for Obama saying that it doesn't matter because the election is two years away, but when it shows things close they want to praise the poll. Make up your minds.

@Chenn_benna

You miss the point. Unless you expect the country to be demonstrably worse off 2 years from now (12% unemployment, more wars, and no healthcare bill) then in all likelihood this poll is taken at a time when Obama will be his least popular in his presidency. Thus if some candidates are running close or even with him now that is not a good sign for them two years from now when things in all likelihood will be better.

@obamalover

1. The past few weeks should show even you that they are in fact, prepared to "ram" this legislation through, regardless of what backdoor tactics they (the dems) have to resort to. I am applauding their decision to not use Deem and Pass, but reconciliation? Really? If the bill will do so much to advance our society, and truly is the great piece of legislation that obama and the rest of his cronies are portraying it to be, then they should be able to pass it without underhanded tactics. That is why we say that they are ramming it through.

2. The few parts of the bill that will kick in immediately hardly do anything to help insure the millions of Americans that it is supposed to cover. The only major changes that we will see for at least 3 years is that there will be new limits/restrictions as to what insurance companies can and cannot do, and we will see new glorious taxes (YAY!!!!).

3. I didn't really keep up with that debate, so I won't argue with you on that one.

@OKCJ88

1. So let me get this straight: reconciliation is a back door tactic, but the filibuster isn't? There is a word for this: hypocrisy.

2. Oh I suppose ending pre-existing conditions for children is not a major change? LOL!

3. It looks like you need to keep up with the healthcare debate better as well.